Prior to Collins getting a tap by Lynch then Aarts.Gut punch, off the ball, intentional, moderate impact.
One week for being a dirty campaigner is my pick.
Should probably go the jack Riewoldt defence and say he was aiming for his balls instead because that's only worth a fine.
Not sure why your post doesn't have more likes given it is 100% objective and correct. Guess everyone likes a tanty on BF.Like all fervent AFL supporters there is nothing better than seeing a Tiger supporter all wound up however with all due respect the gut punch by the AFL's prime nancy boy Tom Lynch on Sam Collins was less impactful than what my 5 year old could hand out.
Even more laughable was Collins being felled by the pathetic Aarts attempt to strike which would have been lucky to extinguish a small candle.
So where does this leave soft as yoghurt Collins who carried on like an absolute immature sulking goose in the changerooms afterwards?
Seriously give me back 80s footy any day!!
He must be really, really short.Not this year though. Hawkins just got a fine for the same grades action, so they've been treated equally this year.
It's a fair punishment for what's been given out this year, but I'd agree that must be changed for next year. It doesn't belong in modern footy where true courage is 175mm Baker running back into a pack.
That suggests that fines arent much of a disincentive and the Tigers are quite happy to pushing that edge to "bully" teams. Not the first successful team to go down that route.
tbh, as we saw with fyfes first brownlow theyd just rig it once it comes to the final chance anywayThat suggests that fines arent much of a disincentive and the Tigers are quite happy to pushing that edge to "bully" teams. Not the first successful team to go down that route.
Does make me wonder how much a strikes (or 5 yellow card for a system from other sports) system would work for AFL. Would have rubbed out both Riewoldt and Lynch and Dusty would be on notice.
I remember when Cyril was charged for striking and didn’t even connect and was done on potential to hitNo ones disagreeing that it happens all the time. It’s just that Christian seems to pick and choose which ones to make an example out of. Guarantee you if it’s some second year random doing the same thing he gets a week. “Potential to cause injury” only seems to be whipped out when he’s hellbent on banning someone but doesn’t really have a legitimate reason. Exhibit A, Elliot Yeo.
It’s just so half arse. If you want to stamp it out, cool, ban everyone that does it.. otherwise stop pulling bans out of a hat and just leave it be. It’s that simple, one or the other. The inconsistency is everyone’s problem, not necessarily the specific act (although it is a dog move and no one should be encouraging it).